of the respondents and decreed eviction with rent arrears of Rs.7200/and damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs.1200/- per month from 10-06-1998 till surrender of possession. That was challenged by the appellant before the learned Sub Judge in A.S.No.99 of 2004. While so, on 25-08-2005 taking a cue from the observation made by learned Munsiff in his judgment appellant filed I.A.No.1556 of 2005 seeking amendment of the written statement (dated 08-03-2000) to incorporate a counter claim for a decree for recovery of the said sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. That application was dismissed. The appeal also was dismissed. Hence this second appeal raising by way of substantial question of law whether the first appellate court was justified in concluding from the evidence of PW1, power of attorney holder of respondent that no amount was paid by the appellant by way of security at the time of original entrustment. Learned counsel would contend that even as per evidence of PW1, power of attorney holder of the respondent he has knowledge about the entrustment from 1997 alone, evidence would show that the first entrustment was in the year 1994 and hence PW1 could not have given contra evidence regarding payment of security. According to the learned counsel, refusal of respondents to mount the witness box should have resulted in adverse inference being drawn against them. Evidence of DW1 ought to have been accepted. It is also contended by learned counsel that first appellate court went wrong in dismissing I.A.No.1556 of 2005 for
